北京霖理律师事务所

本文作者

北京霖理律师事务所主任

仲裁员

EMAIL: zhangyulin@linli-law.com

Interactive Learning Tips

 on International Arbitration of IP Disputes 

关于知识产权纠纷的国际仲裁的学习交流提要

      On Jan 18, 2019, LESG did a legal Chinese workshop in Hong Kong with professionals of IP practitioners and lawyers / paralegals in firms in Hong Kong on the topic of international arbitration and intellectual property protection.

      The gist of the workshop is a cross disciplinary one between international arbitration and intellectual property protection. The content covers the basic knowledge of international arbitration, the process of arbitration and the reasons why arbitration becomes so popularly involving IPRs in recent years in the international trade and investment community. 

      For discussion purposes, the workshop introduced the cases of a Franchise Agreement dispute and an investor State arbitration between Eli Lilly v. Canada.

       2019年1月18日，法律英语学习小组（LESG）在香港举办了一场主题为国际仲裁与知识产权保护的“法律中文”研习会。本次会议邀请了知识产权专业领域的实务人士及香港本土的律师和律师助理参加。 

       本次研习会聚焦于国际仲裁和知识产权保护的跨界学习，内容包括但不限于国际仲裁的基础知识、仲裁程序以及仲裁在近年来在国际贸易和投资领域广泛涉及知识产权争议解决的原因。 为了便于开展讨论，本次研习会通过两个案例开展研读，一个是《特许经营协议》纠纷案件，另一个是国家与他国投资者间的仲裁案件——礼来公司诉加拿大政府案。

Some interesting findings during the course of the workshop are summarized below: 

以下为对研习会上的发现和收获的归纳梳理：

Unique features of arbitration

 仲裁的独特之处：

      1)The function of the arbitration agreement is well noted in international arbitration. Parties are alerted to have consensual arbitration from the very beginning when the arbitration clause is inserted into the contract. This is true in the context of both Mainland China and Hong Kong. 

       众所周知，仲裁协议在国际仲裁中发挥着重要作用。在合同中订入仲裁条款时，当事人就已经认识到双方一致同意选择仲裁作为争端解决方式。而无论在中国内地抑或在香港，情况都是如此。

      2)The applicable laws are discussed with some highlights. Applicable laws include the law applicable to the procedure of the arbitration, i.e., the law of the seat of arbitration; the law applicable to the arbitration clauses or arbitration agreement, and the law applicable to the merits of the case. Attention should be paid to each when advising clients in practice. 

       法律适用法是研习会上重点讨论的一个话题。法律适用法的问题涉及到仲裁程序的法律适用（即适用仲裁地法律），仲裁条款或仲裁协议所适用的法律，以及依案件实体而应适用的法律。实践中，特别是在为客户提供咨询意见时，应当注重上述的每一个不同的法律适用法。

Institutional scrutiny of arbitral awards 

仲裁机构的裁决核阅

      Some practice differences are noted between different organizations such as CIETAC and HKIAC. Notice of commencement of arbitration different from each other. Modeled on ICC practice, CIETAC has an award review/screening procedure before the award is issued, while HKIAC does not. 

       不同仲裁机构在实践上存在显著的差异，以中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（下称“贸仲委”）和香港国际仲裁中心（下称“港仲”）为例。就仲裁开始的通知而言，各机构互不相同。借鉴国际商会的惯例，贸仲委在发布仲裁裁决前存在裁决核阅的前置程序，而港仲则没有该程序。

Deciding on principle of fairness and reasonableness

在公平合理的原则上作出裁决

      Arbitral discretion on application of fairness and reasonableness principle differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. 

      HKIAC follows the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. As such, the arbitrator’s authority to award ex aequo et bono is limited to where the parties expressly agree for the arbitration tribunal to do so. In China this authority is derived from the provisions of the Arbitration Law (Article 1 and 7). 

      In the discussions, participants see the possible drafting of an arbitration clause to allow parties to choose the option that arbitrators may handle the disputes ex aequo et bono. This option may give the arbitral tribunal more discretion in deciding the disputes based on fairness and reasonableness principle in countries where the UNCITRAL Model Law applies. 

       对于适用公平合理原则，仲裁员所享有的自由裁量权因法律规定不同而不同。

       港仲遵照联合国国际贸易法委员会《国际商事仲裁示范法》，据此，港仲的仲裁员依照公平合理原则作出的仲裁裁决的权限就被限制在当事人明确授权同意的范围内。而在中国大陆，仲裁员依公平合理原则作出裁决的权限则源自《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（第一条和第七条）。 

       在本次研习会上，与会者认识到通过订立仲裁条款，以允许当事人选择是否允许仲裁员依据公平合理原则处理纠纷的可能性。这种做法可能会给予适用联合国国际贸易法委员会《国际商事仲裁示范法》的国家的仲裁庭更多的基于公平合理原则对纠纷作出裁决的自由裁量权。

Investor-State arbitration upon exhaustion of domestic procedures

用尽国内救济原则上的投资者—国家仲裁

      The workshop examined the procedures available under bilateral investment treaties for investors to initiate international arbitration against the host State where the investment was made. The case study sessions include the reading and brief examination of the case Eli Lilly v Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2). 

      Eli Lilly brought the investor State arbitration against Canada on grounds that its two patents were declared invalid by Canadian courts on ground of failing to meet the promise utility principle adopted as substantive law in Canada. While the substantive claim was dismissed by the distinguished arbitral tribunal composed of Professor Albert Jan van den Berg, Gary B. Born and Sir Daniel Bethlehem QC, the tribunal did find that it has jurisdiction over the dispute of invalidation of patents by the judicial authorities of Canada. This case creates a link between an IPR holder and the host State where its IPR was secured when it comes to claims for losses of invalidation of IPRs (including patents, trademarks etc.). This trend needs to be watched in the future, as IPR, a recognized private right, may become more and more publicly interested among public bodies such as states and regions in the international communities. 

       研习会讨论了在双边投资协定下，投资者可适用的向东道国提起国际仲裁的程序。而在案例研习环节，与会者研读并讨论了礼来公司诉加拿大案(ICSID Case No.UNCT  /14/2)。

       礼来公司对加拿大政府提起了投资者—东道国仲裁，理由是礼来公司的两个专利被加拿大法院以不符合加拿大实体法所采用的承诺实用性原则为由而被宣告无效。尽管礼来公司的主张被由Albert Jan van den Berg教授、Gary B. Born先生和Daniel Bethlehem先生组成的著名的仲裁庭驳回了，但是研习会注意到仲裁庭认为它对加拿大司法当局认定专利无效的争端拥有管辖权。对基于知识产权（如专利、商标等）被宣告无效而致使损失的索赔主张，本案作为一个先例，在知识产权持有人与其知识产权曾经受到保护的东道国之间建立了一个索赔的路径。这种趋势在未来各界都应予以关注。因为知识产权作为一项公认的私权，受到了来自越来越多的国家或地区的倾注。

Pro and con implication of BIT protection for Hong Kong

双边投资保护协定的保护对香港的正反两面的影响

      The workshop also touches on the various types of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that China has entered into in the past, versus those BITs that Hong Kong has entered in the past. It is noted that the number of BITs that China has entered into in the past are many times more than the number of BITs that Hong Kong has with other countries and regions. The implication seems to be remarkably important because, if Hong Kong investors can reply on China’s BITs in its investment overseas, it would seem to be expanding the protection scope for Hong Kong investors in other countries. 

      Having said that, the reciprocity requirements under BITs may need to be studied on case by case basis so as to nail down the real effect of such BITs if Hong Kong takes an assertive move towards reaching agreement with the Central Government on extending BIT protection expressly to Hong Kong.

       研习会还探讨了中国大陆已经签订的各种类型的双边投资保护协定和香港过去订立的双边投资保护协定的比较。值得注意的是，中国大陆已经加入的双边投资保护协定的数量，已数倍于香港与其他国家或地区订立的双边投资保护协定。这隐含的意义和影响非常重大，因为如果香港本土的投资者可以在海外投资时适用中国大陆地区所订立的双边投资保护协定，这将会极大地扩展对香港本土投资者在海外投资方面的保护范围。

       尽管如此，双边投资保护协定之下的对等原则仍然需要基于个案基础进行探究，以明确：如果中央人民政府和香港特别行政区政府达成一致，将中国大陆订立的双边投资保护协定的保护范围扩展适用于香港的情况下，对香港可能产生的实际效益。

北京霖理律师事务所是北京市司法局批准设立的律师事务所，主要业务覆盖国际仲裁、知识产权和商事投资合同争议解决。